Jamie M Faro1, Catherine S Nagawa2, Elizabeth A Orvek2, Bridget M Smith3, Amanda C Blok4, Thomas K Houston5, Ariana Kamberi2, Jeroan J Allison2, Sharina D Person6, Rajani S Sadasivam2. 1. Division of Health Informatics and Implementation Science, Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States. Electronic address: Jamie.faro@umassmed.edu. 2. Division of Health Informatics and Implementation Science, Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States. 3. Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare (CINCCH), Spinal Cord Injury Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), Hines VAMC, Chicago, IL, United States; Department of Pediatrics and Center for Community Health, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States. 4. Department of Systems, Populations and Leadership, University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, MI, United States. 5. Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC, United States. 6. Division of Biostatistics and Health Services Research, Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Choosing the right recruitment strategy has implications for the successful conduct of a trial. Our objective was to compare a novel peer recruitment strategy to four other recruitment strategies for a large randomized trial testing a digital tobacco intervention. METHODS: We compared enrollment rates, demographic and baseline smoking characteristics, and odds of completing the 6-month study by recruitment strategy. Cost of recruitment strategies per retained participant was calculated using staff personnel time and advertisement costs. FINDINGS: We enrolled 1487 participants between August 2017 and March 2019 from: Peer recruitment n = 273 (18.4%), Facebook Ads n = 505 (34%), Google Ads = 200 (13.4%), ResearchMatch n = 356 (23.9%) and Smokefree.govn = 153 (10.3%). Mean enrollment rate per active recruitment month: 1) Peer recruitment, n = 13.9, 2) Facebook ads, n = 25.3, 3) Google ads, n = 10.51, 4) Research Match, n = 59.3, and 5) Smokefree.gov, n = 13.9. Peer recruitment recruited the greatest number of males (n = 110, 40.3%), young adults (n = 41, 14.7%), participants with a high school degree or less (n = 24, 12.5%) and smokers within one's social network. Compared to peer recruitment (retention rate = 57%), participants from Facebook were less likely (OR 0.46, p < 0.01, retention rate = 40%), and those from ResearchMatch were more likely to complete the study (OR 1.90, p < 0.01, retention rate = 70%). Peer recruitment was moderate in cost per retained participant ($47.18) and substantially less costly than Facebook ($173.60). CONCLUSIONS: Though peer recruitment had lower enrollment than other strategies, it may provide greater access to harder to reach populations and possibly others who smoke within one's social network while being moderately cost-effective. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03224520.
BACKGROUND: Choosing the right recruitment strategy has implications for the successful conduct of a trial. Our objective was to compare a novel peer recruitment strategy to four other recruitment strategies for a large randomized trial testing a digital tobacco intervention. METHODS: We compared enrollment rates, demographic and baseline smoking characteristics, and odds of completing the 6-month study by recruitment strategy. Cost of recruitment strategies per retained participant was calculated using staff personnel time and advertisement costs. FINDINGS: We enrolled 1487 participants between August 2017 and March 2019 from: Peer recruitment n = 273 (18.4%), Facebook Ads n = 505 (34%), Google Ads = 200 (13.4%), ResearchMatch n = 356 (23.9%) and Smokefree.govn = 153 (10.3%). Mean enrollment rate per active recruitment month: 1) Peer recruitment, n = 13.9, 2) Facebook ads, n = 25.3, 3) Google ads, n = 10.51, 4) Research Match, n = 59.3, and 5) Smokefree.gov, n = 13.9. Peer recruitment recruited the greatest number of males (n = 110, 40.3%), young adults (n = 41, 14.7%), participants with a high school degree or less (n = 24, 12.5%) and smokers within one's social network. Compared to peer recruitment (retention rate = 57%), participants from Facebook were less likely (OR 0.46, p < 0.01, retention rate = 40%), and those from ResearchMatch were more likely to complete the study (OR 1.90, p < 0.01, retention rate = 70%). Peer recruitment was moderate in cost per retained participant ($47.18) and substantially less costly than Facebook ($173.60). CONCLUSIONS: Though peer recruitment had lower enrollment than other strategies, it may provide greater access to harder to reach populations and possibly others who smoke within one's social network while being moderately cost-effective. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03224520.
Authors: Jill M Pulley; Rebecca N Jerome; Gordon R Bernard; Erik J Olson; Jason Tan; Consuelo H Wilkins; Paul A Harris Journal: J Clin Transl Sci Date: 2018-08
Authors: Jamie M Faro; Elizabeth A Orvek; Amanda C Blok; Catherine S Nagawa; Annalise J McDonald; Gregory Seward; Thomas K Houston; Ariana Kamberi; Jeroan J Allison; Sharina D Person; Bridget M Smith; Kathleen Brady; Tina Grosowsky; Lewis L Jacobsen; Jennifer Paine; James M Welch; Rajani S Sadasivam Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2019-07-23
Authors: Rajani S Sadasivam; Sarah L Cutrona; Tana M Luger; Erik Volz; Rebecca Kinney; Sowmya R Rao; Jeroan J Allison; Thomas K Houston Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Rajani Shankar Sadasivam; Rebecca L Kinney; Kathryn Delaughter; Sowmya R Rao; Jessica Hillman Williams; Heather L Coley; Midge N Ray; Gregg H Gilbert; Jeroan J Allison; Daniel E Ford; Thomas K Houston Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Noreen L Watson; Kristin E Mull; Jaimee L Heffner; Jennifer B McClure; Jonathan B Bricker Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-08-24 Impact factor: 5.428